Current Events > Afghanistan, Iraq and Syria. Did we achieve what we set out to achieve?

Topic List	Page List: 1
Crepes 12/21/18 8:41:22 PM #1:	Comparing why we went into these countries do you think now were looking to pull out our troops we a) accomplished our goals and b) left those countries in a better state than when we went in? --- Praxis Makes Perfect The only intelligent tactical response to life's horror is to laugh defiantly at it. ~Soren Kierkegaard <cite>Crepes posted [p:914523606] in Afghanista... [t:77323942]...</cite> <quote>Comparing why we went into these countries do you think now were looking to pull out our troops we a) accomplished our goals and b) left those countries in a better state than when we went in?</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
a-c-a-b 12/21/18 8:44:38 PM #2:	Anyone ready for a war against Iran? --- Save for your doomed future <cite>a-c-a-b posted [p:914523751] in Afghanista... [t:77323942]...</cite> <quote>Anyone ready for a war against Iran?</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Cj_WlLL_VVlN 12/21/18 8:49:21 PM #3:	No but if Trump pulls us out I won't hate him as much as I do now. Don't know why US presidents seem to think their job is blowing up little brown kids. --- The gamefaqs moderation team knows dogs capable of being offended, cant laugh at a joke, and like to punish jokes that are acceptable on prime time TV pg shows. <cite>Cj_WlLL_VVlN posted [p:914523965] in Afghanista... [t:77323942]...</cite> <quote>No but if Trump pulls us out I won't hate him as much as I do now. Don't know why US presidents seem to think their job is blowing up little brown kids.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
#4	Post #4 was unavailable or deleted.
Duncanwii 12/21/18 9:26:02 PM #5:	a-c-a-b posted... Anyone ready for a war against Iran? War against Iran would put us against Russia. Hopefully Trump and his advisers aren't that stupid. --- King K. Rool supporter for Super Smash Brothers Ultimate. <cite>Duncanwii posted [p:914525406] in Afghanista... [t:77323942]...</cite> <quote><cite>a-c-a-b posted...</cite> <quote>Anyone ready for a war against Iran?</quote> War against Iran would put us against Russia. Hopefully Trump and his advisers aren't that stupid.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
#6	Post #6 was unavailable or deleted.
Crepes 12/21/18 9:28:47 PM #7:	CloneTheHero posted... Duncanwii posted... a-c-a-b posted... Anyone ready for a war against Iran? War against Iran would put us against Russia. Hopefully Trump and his advisers aren't that stupid. not to mention iran has nukes and prob stupid enough to use em Do they have nukes? Any source for this? Iran aren't listed in this page: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_states_with_nuclear_weapons --- Praxis Makes Perfect The only intelligent tactical response to life's horror is to laugh defiantly at it. ~Soren Kierkegaard <cite>Crepes posted [p:914525531] in Afghanista... [t:77323942]...</cite> <quote><cite>CloneTheHero posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Duncanwii posted...</cite> <quote><cite>a-c-a-b posted...</cite> <quote>Anyone ready for a war against Iran?</quote> War against Iran would put us against Russia. Hopefully Trump and his advisers aren't that stupid.</quote> not to mention iran has nukes and prob stupid enough to use em</quote> Do they have nukes? Any source for this? Iran aren't listed in this page: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_states_with_nuclear_weapons</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Crepes 12/21/18 9:30:25 PM #8:	RoadsterUFO posted... No, and it is long overdo a sitting President had the sense to finally withdraw from a United States occupation in one of these nations. Occupying Syria, a country that hasnt attacked us and poses zero threat to us is not putting America first. We have no business there, never had any Congressional Approval of War to even be there, and were taxing the productive and wasting money for this. I hope the rumors of Trump wanting to pull out of Afghanistan next turn out to be true. Unfortunately were still drone bombing a bunch of countries and supplying Saudi Arabia and Israel with weapons and welfare, but this is a start. I hope more of Rand Pauls foreign policy rubs off on Trump and he hopefully rejects the neocons like Lindsey Graham out of his ears. Youre happy with Russia being a key played in the Middle East and not the US? Do you not worry well loose what little influence we have of the area of we pull out conpletely? Especially round oil / gas pipelines? --- Praxis Makes Perfect The only intelligent tactical response to life's horror is to laugh defiantly at it. ~Soren Kierkegaard <cite>Crepes posted [p:914525591] in Afghanista... [t:77323942]...</cite> <quote><cite>RoadsterUFO posted...</cite> <quote>No, and it is long overdo a sitting President had the sense to finally withdraw from a United States occupation in one of these nations. Occupying Syria, a country that hasnt attacked us and poses zero threat to us is not putting America first. We have no business there, never had any Congressional Approval of War to even be there, and were taxing the productive and wasting money for this. I hope the rumors of Trump wanting to pull out of Afghanistan next turn out to be true. Unfortunately were still drone bombing a bunch of countries and supplying Saudi Arabia and Israel with weapons and welfare, but this is a start. I hope more of Rand Pauls foreign policy rubs off on Trump and he hopefully rejects the neocons like Lindsey Graham out of his ears.</quote> Youre happy with Russia being a key played in the Middle East and not the US? Do you not worry well loose what little influence we have of the area of we pull out conpletely? Especially round oil / gas pipelines?</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
#9	Post #9 was unavailable or deleted.
#10	Post #10 was unavailable or deleted.
Fossil 12/21/18 9:39:39 PM #11:	RoadsterUFO posted... Crepes posted... RoadsterUFO posted... No, and it is long overdo a sitting President had the sense to finally withdraw from a United States occupation in one of these nations. Occupying Syria, a country that hasnt attacked us and poses zero threat to us is not putting America first. We have no business there, never had any Congressional Approval of War to even be there, and were taxing the productive and wasting money for this. I hope the rumors of Trump wanting to pull out of Afghanistan next turn out to be true. Unfortunately were still drone bombing a bunch of countries and supplying Saudi Arabia and Israel with weapons and welfare, but this is a start. I hope more of Rand Pauls foreign policy rubs off on Trump and he hopefully rejects the neocons like Lindsey Graham out of his ears. Youre happy with Russia being a key played in the Middle East and not the US? Do you not worry well loose what little influence we have of the area of we pull out conpletely? Especially round oil / gas pipelines? Youre arguing we need to continue fighting these unapproved and unconstitutional no endgame objective wars in the Middle East because of Russia. Policing the rest of the world is not the business of the United States. Our freedoms did not get over there in the Middle East. Youre using the American troops and the people of Syria for regime change over what appears to be an obsession and phobia of Russia. Russia nor Syria pose a threat to the United States, they have not attacked us. Quite frankly, I am sick of people advocating for throwing away the lives of Americans for their sick world policing and war obsessions they want to disguise as humanitarian. ^ --- http://i.imgtc.com/fHHz9y2.png <cite>Fossil posted [p:914525970] in Afghanista... [t:77323942]...</cite> <quote><cite>RoadsterUFO posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Crepes posted...</cite> <quote><cite>RoadsterUFO posted...</cite> <quote>No, and it is long overdo a sitting President had the sense to finally withdraw from a United States occupation in one of these nations. Occupying Syria, a country that hasnt attacked us and poses zero threat to us is not putting America first. We have no business there, never had any Congressional Approval of War to even be there, and were taxing the productive and wasting money for this. I hope the rumors of Trump wanting to pull out of Afghanistan next turn out to be true. Unfortunately were still drone bombing a bunch of countries and supplying Saudi Arabia and Israel with weapons and welfare, but this is a start. I hope more of Rand Pauls foreign policy rubs off on Trump and he hopefully rejects the neocons like Lindsey Graham out of his ears.</quote> Youre happy with Russia being a key played in the Middle East and not the US? Do you not worry well loose what little influence we have of the area of we pull out conpletely? Especially round oil / gas pipelines?</quote> Youre arguing we need to continue fighting these unapproved and unconstitutional no endgame objective wars in the Middle East because of Russia. Policing the rest of the world is not the business of the United States. Our freedoms did not get over there in the Middle East. Youre using the American troops and the people of Syria for regime change over what appears to be an obsession and phobia of Russia. Russia nor Syria pose a threat to the United States, they have not attacked us. Quite frankly, I am sick of people advocating for throwing away the lives of Americans for their sick world policing and war obsessions they want to disguise as humanitarian.</quote> ^</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
metralo 12/21/18 9:40:12 PM #12:	no but trump set out what he wanted to achieve by continuing to slob on putin's nob --- https://pbs.twimg.com/profile_images/1298321979/image.jpg bustin makes me feel good <cite>metralo posted [p:914525994] in Afghanista... [t:77323942]...</cite> <quote>no but trump set out what he wanted to achieve by continuing to slob on putin's nob</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
#13	Post #13 was unavailable or deleted.
Crepes 12/21/18 9:43:46 PM #14:	CloneTheHero posted... Crepes posted... CloneTheHero posted... Duncanwii posted... a-c-a-b posted... Anyone ready for a war against Iran? War against Iran would put us against Russia. Hopefully Trump and his advisers aren't that stupid. not to mention iran has nukes and prob stupid enough to use em Do they have nukes? Any source for this? Iran aren't listed in this page: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_states_with_nuclear_weapons there were reports that they were getting enriched uranium from pakistan and Iran covertly processing materials for nuclear weaponry. also several reports about european intelligence being relatively certain that they may have been developing weapon designs and you wouldnt be developing designs if you werent going through with a nuclear weapons program. None of that justifies your claim they have nukes. --- Praxis Makes Perfect The only intelligent tactical response to life's horror is to laugh defiantly at it. ~Soren Kierkegaard <cite>Crepes posted [p:914526123] in Afghanista... [t:77323942]...</cite> <quote><cite>CloneTheHero posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Crepes posted...</cite> <quote><cite>CloneTheHero posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Duncanwii posted...</cite> <quote><cite>a-c-a-b posted...</cite> <quote>Anyone ready for a war against Iran?</quote> War against Iran would put us against Russia. Hopefully Trump and his advisers aren't that stupid.</quote> not to mention iran has nukes and prob stupid enough to use em</quote> Do they have nukes? Any source for this? Iran aren't listed in this page: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_states_with_nuclear_weapons</quote> there were reports that they were getting enriched uranium from pakistan and Iran covertly processing materials for nuclear weaponry. also several reports about european intelligence being relatively certain that they may have been developing weapon designs and you wouldnt be developing designs if you werent going through with a nuclear weapons program.</quote> None of that justifies your claim they have nukes.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Crepes 12/21/18 9:52:40 PM #15:	RoadsterUFO posted... Crepes posted... RoadsterUFO posted... No, and it is long overdo a sitting President had the sense to finally withdraw from a United States occupation in one of these nations. Occupying Syria, a country that hasnt attacked us and poses zero threat to us is not putting America first. We have no business there, never had any Congressional Approval of War to even be there, and were taxing the productive and wasting money for this. I hope the rumors of Trump wanting to pull out of Afghanistan next turn out to be true. Unfortunately were still drone bombing a bunch of countries and supplying Saudi Arabia and Israel with weapons and welfare, but this is a start. I hope more of Rand Pauls foreign policy rubs off on Trump and he hopefully rejects the neocons like Lindsey Graham out of his ears. Youre happy with Russia being a key played in the Middle East and not the US? Do you not worry well loose what little influence we have of the area of we pull out conpletely? Especially round oil / gas pipelines? Youre arguing we need to continue fighting these unapproved and unconstitutional no endgame objective wars in the Middle East because of Russia. Policing the rest of the world is not the business of the United States. Our freedoms did not get over there in the Middle East. Youre using the American troops and the people of Syria for regime change over what appears to be an obsession and phobia of Russia. Russia nor Syria pose a threat to the United States, they have not attacked us. Quite frankly, I am sick of people advocating for throwing away the lives of Americans for their sick world policing and war obsessions they want to disguise as humanitarian. Im not arguing anything. Just looking for clarification. Im a Brit so US involvement in the Middle East and the effects on US troops doesnt particularly resonate massively with me. At least not to the extent it might do with a US citizen. I guess the argument a lot of people use is that its not necessarily about direct attacks from a military point of view. Its more about global influence and the long term planning to ensure the US national interests are protected. Geopolitical games are going to be played regardless of if the US is in the Middle East or not. Surely its in the US national interests to be a part of that game as opposed to leaving them to it? Whether you like it or not the US still gets affected by what happens in the Middle East. --- Praxis Makes Perfect The only intelligent tactical response to life's horror is to laugh defiantly at it. ~Soren Kierkegaard <cite>Crepes posted [p:914526468] in Afghanista... [t:77323942]...</cite> <quote><cite>RoadsterUFO posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Crepes posted...</cite> <quote><cite>RoadsterUFO posted...</cite> <quote>No, and it is long overdo a sitting President had the sense to finally withdraw from a United States occupation in one of these nations. Occupying Syria, a country that hasnt attacked us and poses zero threat to us is not putting America first. We have no business there, never had any Congressional Approval of War to even be there, and were taxing the productive and wasting money for this. I hope the rumors of Trump wanting to pull out of Afghanistan next turn out to be true. Unfortunately were still drone bombing a bunch of countries and supplying Saudi Arabia and Israel with weapons and welfare, but this is a start. I hope more of Rand Pauls foreign policy rubs off on Trump and he hopefully rejects the neocons like Lindsey Graham out of his ears.</quote> Youre happy with Russia being a key played in the Middle East and not the US? Do you not worry well loose what little influence we have of the area of we pull out conpletely? Especially round oil / gas pipelines?</quote> Youre arguing we need to continue fighting these unapproved and unconstitutional no endgame objective wars in the Middle East because of Russia. Policing the rest of the world is not the business of the United States. Our freedoms did not get over there in the Middle East. Youre using the American troops and the people of Syria for regime change over what appears to be an obsession and phobia of Russia. Russia nor Syria pose a threat to the United States, they have not attacked us. Quite frankly, I am sick of people advocating for throwing away the lives of Americans for their sick world policing and war obsessions they want to disguise as humanitarian.</quote> Im not arguing anything. Just looking for clarification. Im a Brit so US involvement in the Middle East and the effects on US troops doesnt particularly resonate massively with me. At least not to the extent it might do with a US citizen. I guess the argument a lot of people use is that its not necessarily about direct attacks from a military point of view. Its more about global influence and the long term planning to ensure the US national interests are protected. Geopolitical games are going to be played regardless of if the US is in the Middle East or not. Surely its in the US national interests to be a part of that game as opposed to leaving them to it? Whether you like it or not the US still gets affected by what happens in the Middle East.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
#16	Post #16 was unavailable or deleted.
Crepes 12/21/18 10:02:57 PM #17:	CloneTheHero posted... Crepes posted... CloneTheHero posted... Crepes posted... CloneTheHero posted... Duncanwii posted... a-c-a-b posted... Anyone ready for a war against Iran? War against Iran would put us against Russia. Hopefully Trump and his advisers aren't that stupid. not to mention iran has nukes and prob stupid enough to use em Do they have nukes? Any source for this? Iran aren't listed in this page: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_states_with_nuclear_weapons there were reports that they were getting enriched uranium from pakistan and Iran covertly processing materials for nuclear weaponry. also several reports about european intelligence being relatively certain that they may have been developing weapon designs and you wouldnt be developing designs if you werent going through with a nuclear weapons program. None of that justifies your claim they have nukes. just because their arsenal doesnt show up on your little wikipedia page doesnt confirm they dont either. lol. theyve been caught redhanded covertly processing fissile materials, theyre deeply aligned with the russians... put two and two together, they prob got a few nukes bud. sorry if your wikipedia doesnt show you. this is a rogue state, its not like theyre gonna happily admit to the un theyve developed nukes lol but the evidence supports them more than likely having nukes. Youre back tracking. Youve gone from: They have nukes to they more than likely have nukes. You keep on talking about all this evidence so can you provide some sources please? You arent going to win me over by dismissing the evidence Ive provided based on a post with no sources in it. Its pretty difficult to prove a negative. Thats why the burden of proof is always on the person who makes the claim. --- Praxis Makes Perfect The only intelligent tactical response to life's horror is to laugh defiantly at it. ~Soren Kierkegaard <cite>Crepes posted [p:914526876] in Afghanista... [t:77323942]...</cite> <quote><cite>CloneTheHero posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Crepes posted...</cite> <quote><cite>CloneTheHero posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Crepes posted...</cite> <quote><cite>CloneTheHero posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Duncanwii posted...</cite> <quote><cite>a-c-a-b posted...</cite> <quote>Anyone ready for a war against Iran?</quote> War against Iran would put us against Russia. Hopefully Trump and his advisers aren't that stupid.</quote> not to mention iran has nukes and prob stupid enough to use em</quote> Do they have nukes? Any source for this? Iran aren't listed in this page: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_states_with_nuclear_weapons</quote> there were reports that they were getting enriched uranium from pakistan and Iran covertly processing materials for nuclear weaponry. also several reports about european intelligence being relatively certain that they may have been developing weapon designs and you wouldnt be developing designs if you werent going through with a nuclear weapons program.</quote> None of that justifies your claim they have nukes.</quote> just because their arsenal doesnt show up on your little wikipedia page doesnt confirm they dont either. lol. theyve been caught redhanded covertly processing fissile materials, theyre deeply aligned with the russians... put two and two together, they prob got a few nukes bud. sorry if your wikipedia doesnt show you. this is a rogue state, its not like theyre gonna happily admit to the un theyve developed nukes lol but the evidence supports them more than likely having nukes.</quote> Youre back tracking. Youve gone from: They have nukes to they more than likely have nukes. You keep on talking about all this evidence so can you provide some sources please? You arent going to win me over by dismissing the evidence Ive provided based on a post with no sources in it. Its pretty difficult to prove a negative. Thats why the burden of proof is always on the person who makes the claim.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
#18	Post #18 was unavailable or deleted.
SterlingM 12/22/18 12:38:22 AM #19:	Yes so much so that ISIS attacks are virtually nonexistent compared to the rest of the world --- Take ya bae, no Harambe <cite>SterlingM posted [p:914532749] in Afghanista... [t:77323942]...</cite> <quote>Yes so much so that ISIS attacks are virtually nonexistent compared to the rest of the world</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
#20	Post #20 was unavailable or deleted.
Crepes 12/22/18 3:34:45 AM #21:	CloneTheHero posted... not trying to win you over nor am i backtracking, they have nukes. im simply presenting what i know and what is fact. you put the pieces together and its highly likely they have a few nukes carefully hidden away ready to be armed when need be. im not gonna source you youre a big boy you can do your own research. a quick google search will confirm everything ive just said. im not your personal assistant you can look up your own sources buddy. its not that hard, you can do it. Facts are easily backed up by evidence. You havent produced any. --- Praxis Makes Perfect The only intelligent tactical response to life's horror is to laugh defiantly at it. ~Soren Kierkegaard <cite>Crepes posted [p:914537401] in Afghanista... [t:77323942]...</cite> <quote><cite>CloneTheHero posted...</cite> <quote>not trying to win you over nor am i backtracking, they have nukes. im simply presenting what i know and what is fact. you put the pieces together and its highly likely they have a few nukes carefully hidden away ready to be armed when need be. im not gonna source you youre a big boy you can do your own research. a quick google search will confirm everything ive just said. im not your personal assistant you can look up your own sources buddy. its not that hard, you can do it.</quote> Facts are easily backed up by evidence. You havent produced any.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Anti-245 12/22/18 4:03:26 AM #22:	@Crepes posted... CloneTheHero posted... not trying to win you over nor am i backtracking, they have nukes. im simply presenting what i know and what is fact. you put the pieces together and its highly likely they have a few nukes carefully hidden away ready to be armed when need be. im not gonna source you youre a big boy you can do your own research. a quick google search will confirm everything ive just said. im not your personal assistant you can look up your own sources buddy. its not that hard, you can do it. Facts are easily backed up by evidence. You havent produced any. There is no "we" here. The elite got what it wanted. --- Life in the DoB. <cite>Anti-245 posted [p:914537994] in Afghanista... [t:77323942]...</cite> <quote><cite>@Crepes posted...</cite> <quote><cite>CloneTheHero posted...</cite> <quote>not trying to win you over nor am i backtracking, they have nukes. im simply presenting what i know and what is fact. you put the pieces together and its highly likely they have a few nukes carefully hidden away ready to be armed when need be. im not gonna source you youre a big boy you can do your own research. a quick google search will confirm everything ive just said. im not your personal assistant you can look up your own sources buddy. its not that hard, you can do it.</quote> Facts are easily backed up by evidence. You havent produced any.</quote> There is no "we" here. The elite got what it wanted.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Crepes 12/22/18 4:43:34 AM #23:	Anti-245 posted... @Crepes posted... CloneTheHero posted... not trying to win you over nor am i backtracking, they have nukes. im simply presenting what i know and what is fact. you put the pieces together and its highly likely they have a few nukes carefully hidden away ready to be armed when need be. im not gonna source you youre a big boy you can do your own research. a quick google search will confirm everything ive just said. im not your personal assistant you can look up your own sources buddy. its not that hard, you can do it. Facts are easily backed up by evidence. You havent produced any. There is no "we" here. The elite got what it wanted. Which is what exactly? --- Praxis Makes Perfect The only intelligent tactical response to life's horror is to laugh defiantly at it. ~Soren Kierkegaard <cite>Crepes posted [p:914538634] in Afghanista... [t:77323942]...</cite> <quote><cite>Anti-245 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>@Crepes posted...</cite> <quote><cite>CloneTheHero posted...</cite> <quote>not trying to win you over nor am i backtracking, they have nukes. im simply presenting what i know and what is fact. you put the pieces together and its highly likely they have a few nukes carefully hidden away ready to be armed when need be. im not gonna source you youre a big boy you can do your own research. a quick google search will confirm everything ive just said. im not your personal assistant you can look up your own sources buddy. its not that hard, you can do it.</quote> Facts are easily backed up by evidence. You havent produced any.</quote> There is no "we" here. The elite got what it wanted.</quote> Which is what exactly?</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Crepes 12/22/18 4:45:27 AM #24:	RoadsterUFO posted... Crepes posted... RoadsterUFO posted... Crepes posted... RoadsterUFO posted... No, and it is long overdo a sitting President had the sense to finally withdraw from a United States occupation in one of these nations. Occupying Syria, a country that hasnt attacked us and poses zero threat to us is not putting America first. We have no business there, never had any Congressional Approval of War to even be there, and were taxing the productive and wasting money for this. I hope the rumors of Trump wanting to pull out of Afghanistan next turn out to be true. Unfortunately were still drone bombing a bunch of countries and supplying Saudi Arabia and Israel with weapons and welfare, but this is a start. I hope more of Rand Pauls foreign policy rubs off on Trump and he hopefully rejects the neocons like Lindsey Graham out of his ears. Youre happy with Russia being a key played in the Middle East and not the US? Do you not worry well loose what little influence we have of the area of we pull out conpletely? Especially round oil / gas pipelines? Youre arguing we need to continue fighting these unapproved and unconstitutional no endgame objective wars in the Middle East because of Russia. Policing the rest of the world is not the business of the United States. Our freedoms did not get over there in the Middle East. Youre using the American troops and the people of Syria for regime change over what appears to be an obsession and phobia of Russia. Russia nor Syria pose a threat to the United States, they have not attacked us. Quite frankly, I am sick of people advocating for throwing away the lives of Americans for their sick world policing and war obsessions they want to disguise as humanitarian. Im not arguing anything. Just looking for clarification. Im a Brit so US involvement in the Middle East and the effects on US troops doesnt particularly resonate massively with me. At least not to the extent it might do with a US citizen. I guess the argument a lot of people use is that its not necessarily about direct attacks from a military point of view. Its more about global influence and the long term planning to ensure the US national interests are protected. Geopolitical games are going to be played regardless of if the US is in the Middle East or not. Surely its in the US national interests to be a part of that game as opposed to leaving them to it? Whether you like it or not the US still gets affected by what happens in the Middle East. The Middle East is over -> there < United States As I stated earlier, the freedoms of the United States are not in the Middle East. Syria, Afghanistan, etc. Middle Eastern country poses no direct threat to us and serve zero national interest to the United States. Theyre not a part of the United States, they arent one of our 50 states or one of our territories. Just to push a little further. What are your feelings on the US providing so much support to Israel and KSA? If, as you state, what happens in the Middle East is of no consequence to the US, why does the US continue to support these regimes? --- Praxis Makes Perfect The only intelligent tactical response to life's horror is to laugh defiantly at it. ~Soren Kierkegaard <cite>Crepes posted [p:914538660] in Afghanista... [t:77323942]...</cite> <quote><cite>RoadsterUFO posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Crepes posted...</cite> <quote><cite>RoadsterUFO posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Crepes posted...</cite> <quote><cite>RoadsterUFO posted...</cite> <quote>No, and it is long overdo a sitting President had the sense to finally withdraw from a United States occupation in one of these nations. Occupying Syria, a country that hasnt attacked us and poses zero threat to us is not putting America first. We have no business there, never had any Congressional Approval of War to even be there, and were taxing the productive and wasting money for this. I hope the rumors of Trump wanting to pull out of Afghanistan next turn out to be true. Unfortunately were still drone bombing a bunch of countries and supplying Saudi Arabia and Israel with weapons and welfare, but this is a start. I hope more of Rand Pauls foreign policy rubs off on Trump and he hopefully rejects the neocons like Lindsey Graham out of his ears.</quote> Youre happy with Russia being a key played in the Middle East and not the US? Do you not worry well loose what little influence we have of the area of we pull out conpletely? Especially round oil / gas pipelines?</quote> Youre arguing we need to continue fighting these unapproved and unconstitutional no endgame objective wars in the Middle East because of Russia. Policing the rest of the world is not the business of the United States. Our freedoms did not get over there in the Middle East. Youre using the American troops and the people of Syria for regime change over what appears to be an obsession and phobia of Russia. Russia nor Syria pose a threat to the United States, they have not attacked us. Quite frankly, I am sick of people advocating for throwing away the lives of Americans for their sick world policing and war obsessions they want to disguise as humanitarian.</quote> Im not arguing anything. Just looking for clarification. Im a Brit so US involvement in the Middle East and the effects on US troops doesnt particularly resonate massively with me. At least not to the extent it might do with a US citizen. I guess the argument a lot of people use is that its not necessarily about direct attacks from a military point of view. Its more about global influence and the long term planning to ensure the US national interests are protected. Geopolitical games are going to be played regardless of if the US is in the Middle East or not. Surely its in the US national interests to be a part of that game as opposed to leaving them to it? Whether you like it or not the US still gets affected by what happens in the Middle East.</quote> The Middle East is over -> there < United States As I stated earlier, the freedoms of the United States are not in the Middle East. Syria, Afghanistan, etc. Middle Eastern country poses no direct threat to us and serve zero national interest to the United States. Theyre not a part of the United States, they arent one of our 50 states or one of our territories.</quote> Just to push a little further. What are your feelings on the US providing so much support to Israel and KSA? If, as you state, what happens in the Middle East is of no consequence to the US, why does the US continue to support these regimes?</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Bad_Mojo 12/22/18 4:50:31 AM #25:	@Cj_WlLL_VVlN posted... No but if Trump pulls us out I won't hate him as much as I do now. Don't know why US presidents seem to think their job is blowing up little brown kids. Ronald Reagan was an actor, not at all a factor Just an employee of the country's real masters Just like the Bushes, Clinton and Obama Just another talking head telling lies on teleprompters If you don't believe the theory, then argue with this logic Why did Reagan and Obama both go after Qaddafi We invaded sovereign soil, going after oil Taking countries is a hobby paid for by the oil lobby Same as in Iraq, and Afghanistan And Ahmadinejad say they coming for Iran --- https://i.imgtc.com/hQ5SuG6.gif https://i.imgtc.com/QrhAq36.gif https://i.imgtc.com/Yjov9DU.gif <cite>Bad_Mojo posted [p:914538748] in Afghanista... [t:77323942]...</cite> <quote><cite>@Cj_WlLL_VVlN posted...</cite> <quote>No but if Trump pulls us out I won't hate him as much as I do now. Don't know why US presidents seem to think their job is blowing up little brown kids.</quote> Ronald Reagan was an actor, not at all a factor Just an employee of the country's real masters Just like the Bushes, Clinton and Obama Just another talking head telling lies on teleprompters If you don't believe the theory, then argue with this logic Why did Reagan and Obama both go after Qaddafi We invaded sovereign soil, going after oil Taking countries is a hobby paid for by the oil lobby Same as in Iraq, and Afghanistan And Ahmadinejad say they coming for Iran</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
a-c-a-b 12/22/18 11:54:00 AM #26:	Bad_Mojo posted... @Cj_WlLL_VVlN posted... No but if Trump pulls us out I won't hate him as much as I do now. Don't know why US presidents seem to think their job is blowing up little brown kids. Ronald Reagan was an actor, not at all a factor Just an employee of the country's real masters Just like the Bushes, Clinton and Obama Just another talking head telling lies on teleprompters If you don't believe the theory, then argue with this logic Why did Reagan and Obama both go after Qaddafi We invaded sovereign soil, going after oil Taking countries is a hobby paid for by the oil lobby Same as in Iraq, and Afghanistan And Ahmadinejad say they coming for Iran I know that tune. Killer Mike. --- Save for your doomed future <cite>a-c-a-b posted [p:914548399] in Afghanista... [t:77323942]...</cite> <quote><cite>Bad_Mojo posted...</cite> <quote><cite>@Cj_WlLL_VVlN posted...</cite> <quote>No but if Trump pulls us out I won't hate him as much as I do now. Don't know why US presidents seem to think their job is blowing up little brown kids.</quote> Ronald Reagan was an actor, not at all a factor Just an employee of the country's real masters Just like the Bushes, Clinton and Obama Just another talking head telling lies on teleprompters If you don't believe the theory, then argue with this logic Why did Reagan and Obama both go after Qaddafi We invaded sovereign soil, going after oil Taking countries is a hobby paid for by the oil lobby Same as in Iraq, and Afghanistan And Ahmadinejad say they coming for Iran</quote> I know that tune. Killer Mike.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Crepes 12/22/18 2:15:52 PM #27:	Crepes posted... RoadsterUFO posted... Crepes posted... RoadsterUFO posted... Crepes posted... RoadsterUFO posted... No, and it is long overdo a sitting President had the sense to finally withdraw from a United States occupation in one of these nations. Occupying Syria, a country that hasnt attacked us and poses zero threat to us is not putting America first. We have no business there, never had any Congressional Approval of War to even be there, and were taxing the productive and wasting money for this. I hope the rumors of Trump wanting to pull out of Afghanistan next turn out to be true. Unfortunately were still drone bombing a bunch of countries and supplying Saudi Arabia and Israel with weapons and welfare, but this is a start. I hope more of Rand Pauls foreign policy rubs off on Trump and he hopefully rejects the neocons like Lindsey Graham out of his ears. Youre happy with Russia being a key played in the Middle East and not the US? Do you not worry well loose what little influence we have of the area of we pull out conpletely? Especially round oil / gas pipelines? Youre arguing we need to continue fighting these unapproved and unconstitutional no endgame objective wars in the Middle East because of Russia. Policing the rest of the world is not the business of the United States. Our freedoms did not get over there in the Middle East. Youre using the American troops and the people of Syria for regime change over what appears to be an obsession and phobia of Russia. Russia nor Syria pose a threat to the United States, they have not attacked us. Quite frankly, I am sick of people advocating for throwing away the lives of Americans for their sick world policing and war obsessions they want to disguise as humanitarian. Im not arguing anything. Just looking for clarification. Im a Brit so US involvement in the Middle East and the effects on US troops doesnt particularly resonate massively with me. At least not to the extent it might do with a US citizen. I guess the argument a lot of people use is that its not necessarily about direct attacks from a military point of view. Its more about global influence and the long term planning to ensure the US national interests are protected. Geopolitical games are going to be played regardless of if the US is in the Middle East or not. Surely its in the US national interests to be a part of that game as opposed to leaving them to it? Whether you like it or not the US still gets affected by what happens in the Middle East. The Middle East is over -> there < United States As I stated earlier, the freedoms of the United States are not in the Middle East. Syria, Afghanistan, etc. Middle Eastern country poses no direct threat to us and serve zero national interest to the United States. Theyre not a part of the United States, they arent one of our 50 states or one of our territories. Just to push a little further. What are your feelings on the US providing so much support to Israel and KSA? If, as you state, what happens in the Middle East is of no consequence to the US, why does the US continue to support these regimes? @RoadsterUFO are you happy to respond to my query above? --- Praxis Makes Perfect The only intelligent tactical response to life's horror is to laugh defiantly at it. ~Soren Kierkegaard <cite>Crepes posted [p:914553359] in Afghanista... [t:77323942]...</cite> <quote><cite>Crepes posted...</cite> <quote><cite>RoadsterUFO posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Crepes posted...</cite> <quote><cite>RoadsterUFO posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Crepes posted...</cite> <quote><cite>RoadsterUFO posted...</cite> <quote>No, and it is long overdo a sitting President had the sense to finally withdraw from a United States occupation in one of these nations. Occupying Syria, a country that hasnt attacked us and poses zero threat to us is not putting America first. We have no business there, never had any Congressional Approval of War to even be there, and were taxing the productive and wasting money for this. I hope the rumors of Trump wanting to pull out of Afghanistan next turn out to be true. Unfortunately were still drone bombing a bunch of countries and supplying Saudi Arabia and Israel with weapons and welfare, but this is a start. I hope more of Rand Pauls foreign policy rubs off on Trump and he hopefully rejects the neocons like Lindsey Graham out of his ears.</quote> Youre happy with Russia being a key played in the Middle East and not the US? Do you not worry well loose what little influence we have of the area of we pull out conpletely? Especially round oil / gas pipelines?</quote> Youre arguing we need to continue fighting these unapproved and unconstitutional no endgame objective wars in the Middle East because of Russia. Policing the rest of the world is not the business of the United States. Our freedoms did not get over there in the Middle East. Youre using the American troops and the people of Syria for regime change over what appears to be an obsession and phobia of Russia. Russia nor Syria pose a threat to the United States, they have not attacked us. Quite frankly, I am sick of people advocating for throwing away the lives of Americans for their sick world policing and war obsessions they want to disguise as humanitarian.</quote> Im not arguing anything. Just looking for clarification. Im a Brit so US involvement in the Middle East and the effects on US troops doesnt particularly resonate massively with me. At least not to the extent it might do with a US citizen. I guess the argument a lot of people use is that its not necessarily about direct attacks from a military point of view. Its more about global influence and the long term planning to ensure the US national interests are protected. Geopolitical games are going to be played regardless of if the US is in the Middle East or not. Surely its in the US national interests to be a part of that game as opposed to leaving them to it? Whether you like it or not the US still gets affected by what happens in the Middle East.</quote> The Middle East is over -> there < United States As I stated earlier, the freedoms of the United States are not in the Middle East. Syria, Afghanistan, etc. Middle Eastern country poses no direct threat to us and serve zero national interest to the United States. Theyre not a part of the United States, they arent one of our 50 states or one of our territories.</quote> Just to push a little further. What are your feelings on the US providing so much support to Israel and KSA? If, as you state, what happens in the Middle East is of no consequence to the US, why does the US continue to support these regimes?</quote> @RoadsterUFO are you happy to respond to my query above?</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Broseph_Stalin 12/22/18 2:18:13 PM #28:	CloneTheHero is a joke account guys <cite>Broseph_Stalin posted [p:914553458] in Afghanista... [t:77323942]...</cite> <quote>CloneTheHero is a joke account guys</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
cerealbox760 12/22/18 2:30:11 PM #29:	Don't worry. America will be back in no time. 3 times the personnel, 3 times the casualties unfortunately. Middle east intervention is prevention. Libertarians are delusional to think the middle east will leave us alone if we leave them alone. They have been at war longer than the existence of America. Don't forget. Non interventionist policies gave rise to Hitler and ISIS. Pulling out didn't work in the past and won't work in the future. Its tragic we don't learn from our mistakes. lol. Soon America will be dealing and negotiating with a stronger foe and enemy again. There's good reason why enemies of the west are celebrating. <cite>cerealbox760 posted [p:914553910] in Afghanista... [t:77323942]...</cite> <quote>Don't worry. America will be back in no time. 3 times the personnel, 3 times the casualties unfortunately. Middle east intervention is prevention. Libertarians are delusional to think the middle east will leave us alone if we leave them alone. They have been at war longer than the existence of America. Don't forget. Non interventionist policies gave rise to Hitler and ISIS. Pulling out didn't work in the past and won't work in the future. Its tragic we don't learn from our mistakes. lol. Soon America will be dealing and negotiating with a stronger foe and enemy again. There's good reason why enemies of the west are celebrating.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Crepes 12/22/18 2:37:47 PM #30:	cerealbox760 posted... Don't worry. America will be back in no time. 3 times the personnel, 3 times the casualties unfortunately. Middle east intervention is prevention. Libertarians are delusional to think the middle east will leave us alone if we leave them alone. They have been at war longer than the existence of America. Don't forget. Non interventionist policies gave rise to Hitler and ISIS. Pulling out didn't work in the past and won't work in the future. Its tragic we don't learn from our mistakes. lol. Soon America will be dealing and negotiating with a stronger foe and enemy again. There's good reason why enemies of the west are celebrating. What does leave them alone mean though to these people? I feel they are just basing is on the military having feet on the ground. However while the army might not be physically there, US policies and corporations still are and affecting the day to day lives of people. If these people want to stay out great. But that needs to extend to pulling support for Israel and KSA as well which Im curious if theyd be prepared to go that far. --- Praxis Makes Perfect The only intelligent tactical response to life's horror is to laugh defiantly at it. ~Soren Kierkegaard <cite>Crepes posted [p:914554251] in Afghanista... [t:77323942]...</cite> <quote><cite>cerealbox760 posted...</cite> <quote>Don't worry. America will be back in no time. 3 times the personnel, 3 times the casualties unfortunately. Middle east intervention is prevention. Libertarians are delusional to think the middle east will leave us alone if we leave them alone. They have been at war longer than the existence of America. Don't forget. Non interventionist policies gave rise to Hitler and ISIS. Pulling out didn't work in the past and won't work in the future. Its tragic we don't learn from our mistakes. lol. Soon America will be dealing and negotiating with a stronger foe and enemy again. There's good reason why enemies of the west are celebrating.</quote> What does leave them alone mean though to these people? I feel they are just basing is on the military having feet on the ground. However while the army might not be physically there, US policies and corporations still are and affecting the day to day lives of people. If these people want to stay out great. But that needs to extend to pulling support for Israel and KSA as well which Im curious if theyd be prepared to go that far.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
#31	Post #31 was unavailable or deleted.
Sativa_Rose 12/22/18 6:33:46 PM #32:	We barely stuck our foot into Syria. It really is not comparable to either Iraq or Afghanistan, which both involved regime change and nation building. People are vastly overestimating just how committed we ever were to Syria. Between Afghanistan and Iraq, Iraq is the one that actually worked out better. They control virtually 100% of their territory now, and we are just providing a small amount of training/assistance. There are definitely concerns about things like the influence of the Iranian militias, but it's not a warzone like it was a few years ago. In Afghanistan, the government only controls like 50-60% of the territory maximum. It's a much more dire situation. It still is a real warzone. --- [This signature was deleted at the request of a moderator or administrator] <cite>Sativa_Rose posted [p:914564519] in Afghanista... [t:77323942]...</cite> <quote>We barely stuck our foot into Syria. It really is not comparable to either Iraq or Afghanistan, which both involved regime change and nation building. People are vastly overestimating just how committed we ever were to Syria. Between Afghanistan and Iraq, Iraq is the one that actually worked out better. They control virtually 100% of their territory now, and we are just providing a small amount of training/assistance. There are definitely concerns about things like the influence of the Iranian militias, but it's not a warzone like it was a few years ago. In Afghanistan, the government only controls like 50-60% of the territory maximum. It's a much more dire situation. It still is a real warzone.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Crepes 12/22/18 8:09:42 PM #33:	Sativa_Rose posted... We barely stuck our foot into Syria. It really is not comparable to either Iraq or Afghanistan, which both involved regime change and nation building. People are vastly overestimating just how committed we ever were to Syria. Between Afghanistan and Iraq, Iraq is the one that actually worked out better. They control virtually 100% of their territory now, and we are just providing a small amount of training/assistance. There are definitely concerns about things like the influence of the Iranian militias, but it's not a warzone like it was a few years ago. In Afghanistan, the government only controls like 50-60% of the territory maximum. It's a much more dire situation. It still is a real warzone. Both had different objectives though didnt they? Afghanistan was about preventing the taliban from harbouring the terrorists that helped plan 9/11. Iraq was about regime change. --- Praxis Makes Perfect The only intelligent tactical response to life's horror is to laugh defiantly at it. ~Soren Kierkegaard <cite>Crepes posted [p:914568538] in Afghanista... [t:77323942]...</cite> <quote><cite>Sativa_Rose posted...</cite> <quote>We barely stuck our foot into Syria. It really is not comparable to either Iraq or Afghanistan, which both involved regime change and nation building. People are vastly overestimating just how committed we ever were to Syria. Between Afghanistan and Iraq, Iraq is the one that actually worked out better. They control virtually 100% of their territory now, and we are just providing a small amount of training/assistance. There are definitely concerns about things like the influence of the Iranian militias, but it's not a warzone like it was a few years ago. In Afghanistan, the government only controls like 50-60% of the territory maximum. It's a much more dire situation. It still is a real warzone.</quote> Both had different objectives though didnt they? Afghanistan was about preventing the taliban from harbouring the terrorists that helped plan 9/11. Iraq was about regime change.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
HBOSS 12/22/18 10:42:56 PM #34:	the way i saw it, this region was/is highly unstable. theres no control over the land and terror cells were/are taking advantage over the instability in these nations. there are sides taken all over the world. Afganistan - known terrorist location and no eyes on them. Iraq - Hidden Weapons of Mass Destruction and fear of stolen WMDs from them. Syria - Human Rights and Chemical Weapons use against an uprising civil war. i dunno though. theres probably a lot of geo-political red tape all over the region and the fear of this spreading instability makes the American Allies in that region wary. the failure of any government is something to fear. thats why we try to spread democracy there (for better or worse) to show the people there are alternatives to livin under a ruthless dictatorship. the people there just simply werent ready for such changes in government. war of the masses the outcome disastrous --- You don't stop playing because you grow old, You grow old because you stop playing <cite>HBOSS posted [p:914574912] in Afghanista... [t:77323942]...</cite> <quote>the way i saw it, this region was/is highly unstable. theres no control over the land and terror cells were/are taking advantage over the instability in these nations. there are sides taken all over the world. Afganistan - known terrorist location and no eyes on them. Iraq - Hidden Weapons of Mass Destruction and fear of stolen WMDs from them. Syria - Human Rights and Chemical Weapons use against an uprising civil war. i dunno though. theres probably a lot of geo-political red tape all over the region and the fear of this spreading instability makes the American Allies in that region wary. the failure of any government is something to fear. thats why we try to spread democracy there (for better or worse) to show the people there are alternatives to livin under a ruthless dictatorship. the people there just simply werent ready for such changes in government. war of the masses the outcome disastrous</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Sativa_Rose 12/23/18 1:36:04 AM #35:	Crepes posted... Sativa_Rose posted... We barely stuck our foot into Syria. It really is not comparable to either Iraq or Afghanistan, which both involved regime change and nation building. People are vastly overestimating just how committed we ever were to Syria. Between Afghanistan and Iraq, Iraq is the one that actually worked out better. They control virtually 100% of their territory now, and we are just providing a small amount of training/assistance. There are definitely concerns about things like the influence of the Iranian militias, but it's not a warzone like it was a few years ago. In Afghanistan, the government only controls like 50-60% of the territory maximum. It's a much more dire situation. It still is a real warzone. Both had different objectives though didnt they? Afghanistan was about preventing the taliban from harbouring the terrorists that helped plan 9/11. Iraq was about regime change. Yes, but Afghanistan also involved a regime change. Before we went in, the Taliban were running the government. It was officially the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan. We overthrew that government and the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan was put in its place, along with a constitution and an electoral framework whatnot. That new government is now trying to stay in power without being overrun by the Taliban (and other groups). --- [This signature was deleted at the request of a moderator or administrator] <cite>Sativa_Rose posted [p:914580901] in Afghanista... [t:77323942]...</cite> <quote><cite>Crepes posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Sativa_Rose posted...</cite> <quote>We barely stuck our foot into Syria. It really is not comparable to either Iraq or Afghanistan, which both involved regime change and nation building. People are vastly overestimating just how committed we ever were to Syria. Between Afghanistan and Iraq, Iraq is the one that actually worked out better. They control virtually 100% of their territory now, and we are just providing a small amount of training/assistance. There are definitely concerns about things like the influence of the Iranian militias, but it's not a warzone like it was a few years ago. In Afghanistan, the government only controls like 50-60% of the territory maximum. It's a much more dire situation. It still is a real warzone.</quote> Both had different objectives though didnt they? Afghanistan was about preventing the taliban from harbouring the terrorists that helped plan 9/11. Iraq was about regime change.</quote> Yes, but Afghanistan also involved a regime change. Before we went in, the Taliban were running the government. It was officially the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan. We overthrew that government and the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan was put in its place, along with a constitution and an electoral framework whatnot. That new government is now trying to stay in power without being overrun by the Taliban (and other groups).</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Crepes 12/23/18 1:42:24 AM #36:	Sativa_Rose posted... Crepes posted... Sativa_Rose posted... We barely stuck our foot into Syria. It really is not comparable to either Iraq or Afghanistan, which both involved regime change and nation building. People are vastly overestimating just how committed we ever were to Syria. Between Afghanistan and Iraq, Iraq is the one that actually worked out better. They control virtually 100% of their territory now, and we are just providing a small amount of training/assistance. There are definitely concerns about things like the influence of the Iranian militias, but it's not a warzone like it was a few years ago. In Afghanistan, the government only controls like 50-60% of the territory maximum. It's a much more dire situation. It still is a real warzone. Both had different objectives though didnt they? Afghanistan was about preventing the taliban from harbouring the terrorists that helped plan 9/11. Iraq was about regime change. Yes, but Afghanistan also involved a regime change. Before we went in, the Taliban were running the government. It was officially the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan. We overthrew that government and the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan was put in its place, along with a constitution and an electoral framework whatnot. That new government is now trying to stay in power without being overrun by the Taliban (and other groups). How come the US seemed to be undermining their own agenda by agreeing to talk to the taliban? --- Praxis Makes Perfect The only intelligent tactical response to life's horror is to laugh defiantly at it. ~Soren Kierkegaard <cite>Crepes posted [p:914581058] in Afghanista... [t:77323942]...</cite> <quote><cite>Sativa_Rose posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Crepes posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Sativa_Rose posted...</cite> <quote>We barely stuck our foot into Syria. It really is not comparable to either Iraq or Afghanistan, which both involved regime change and nation building. People are vastly overestimating just how committed we ever were to Syria. Between Afghanistan and Iraq, Iraq is the one that actually worked out better. They control virtually 100% of their territory now, and we are just providing a small amount of training/assistance. There are definitely concerns about things like the influence of the Iranian militias, but it's not a warzone like it was a few years ago. In Afghanistan, the government only controls like 50-60% of the territory maximum. It's a much more dire situation. It still is a real warzone.</quote> Both had different objectives though didnt they? Afghanistan was about preventing the taliban from harbouring the terrorists that helped plan 9/11. Iraq was about regime change.</quote> Yes, but Afghanistan also involved a regime change. Before we went in, the Taliban were running the government. It was officially the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan. We overthrew that government and the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan was put in its place, along with a constitution and an electoral framework whatnot. That new government is now trying to stay in power without being overrun by the Taliban (and other groups).</quote> How come the US seemed to be undermining their own agenda by agreeing to talk to the taliban?</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Sativa_Rose 12/23/18 1:45:17 AM #37:	Crepes posted... Sativa_Rose posted... Crepes posted... Sativa_Rose posted... We barely stuck our foot into Syria. It really is not comparable to either Iraq or Afghanistan, which both involved regime change and nation building. People are vastly overestimating just how committed we ever were to Syria. Between Afghanistan and Iraq, Iraq is the one that actually worked out better. They control virtually 100% of their territory now, and we are just providing a small amount of training/assistance. There are definitely concerns about things like the influence of the Iranian militias, but it's not a warzone like it was a few years ago. In Afghanistan, the government only controls like 50-60% of the territory maximum. It's a much more dire situation. It still is a real warzone. Both had different objectives though didnt they? Afghanistan was about preventing the taliban from harbouring the terrorists that helped plan 9/11. Iraq was about regime change. Yes, but Afghanistan also involved a regime change. Before we went in, the Taliban were running the government. It was officially the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan. We overthrew that government and the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan was put in its place, along with a constitution and an electoral framework whatnot. That new government is now trying to stay in power without being overrun by the Taliban (and other groups). How come the US seemed to be undermining their own agenda by agreeing to talk to the taliban? We're not undermining our own agenda. The hope is that peace talks could lead to some kind of agreement. The Afghan government has said that whatever happens, the Taliban must follow the constitution, and the Taliban say that they will never recognize the constitution because it is un-Islamic, so it's not likely that these peace talks will actually accomplish anything. Still though, better to have an open dialogue I guess. --- [This signature was deleted at the request of a moderator or administrator] <cite>Sativa_Rose posted [p:914581131] in Afghanista... [t:77323942]...</cite> <quote><cite>Crepes posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Sativa_Rose posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Crepes posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Sativa_Rose posted...</cite> <quote>We barely stuck our foot into Syria. It really is not comparable to either Iraq or Afghanistan, which both involved regime change and nation building. People are vastly overestimating just how committed we ever were to Syria. Between Afghanistan and Iraq, Iraq is the one that actually worked out better. They control virtually 100% of their territory now, and we are just providing a small amount of training/assistance. There are definitely concerns about things like the influence of the Iranian militias, but it's not a warzone like it was a few years ago. In Afghanistan, the government only controls like 50-60% of the territory maximum. It's a much more dire situation. It still is a real warzone.</quote> Both had different objectives though didnt they? Afghanistan was about preventing the taliban from harbouring the terrorists that helped plan 9/11. Iraq was about regime change.</quote> Yes, but Afghanistan also involved a regime change. Before we went in, the Taliban were running the government. It was officially the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan. We overthrew that government and the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan was put in its place, along with a constitution and an electoral framework whatnot. That new government is now trying to stay in power without being overrun by the Taliban (and other groups).</quote> How come the US seemed to be undermining their own agenda by agreeing to talk to the taliban?</quote> We're not undermining our own agenda. The hope is that peace talks could lead to some kind of agreement. The Afghan government has said that whatever happens, the Taliban must follow the constitution, and the Taliban say that they will never recognize the constitution because it is un-Islamic, so it's not likely that these peace talks will actually accomplish anything. Still though, better to have an open dialogue I guess.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Crepes 12/23/18 1:52:58 AM #38:	Ok thanks for taking the time to answer my incessant questioning. I do appreciate it. --- Praxis Makes Perfect The only intelligent tactical response to life's horror is to laugh defiantly at it. ~Soren Kierkegaard <cite>Crepes posted [p:914581328] in Afghanista... [t:77323942]...</cite> <quote>Ok thanks for taking the time to answer my incessant questioning. I do appreciate it.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Sativa_Rose 12/23/18 2:06:42 AM #39:	Crepes posted... Ok thanks for taking the time to answer my incessant questioning. I do appreciate it. No problem lol :) --- [This signature was deleted at the request of a moderator or administrator] <cite>Sativa_Rose posted [p:914581698] in Afghanista... [t:77323942]...</cite> <quote><cite>Crepes posted...</cite> <quote>Ok thanks for taking the time to answer my incessant questioning. I do appreciate it.</quote> No problem lol :)</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Topic List	Page List: 1

Current Events > Afghanistan, Iraq and Syria. Did we achieve what we set out to achieve? (+) Yeah! (+)

Current Events > Afghanistan, Iraq and Syria. Did we achieve what we set out to achieve?